Sad situation for our children

In Charlotte, NC and apparently across the country schools have plans to cut teaching positions as municipalities face budget shortfalls. There is a major problem with this trend. Also, here in North Carolina and across the country we've been hearing over and over again about teacher shortages. And these shortages are real. The number of students in each classroom exceeds recommended amounts for effective learning. Programs like Teach for America are working to lure more to the profession. Programs are in place to help those in other fields transition successfully to the teaching world. In addition, in these economic times, many students who were once in private schools will enter the public school system because their recently unemployed parent(s) can no longer afford tuition. So at the same time enrollment will increase, teachers will be cut. Times are difficult and money is short, but how can the best course of action be to layoff classroom teachers?

I'd hate to see anyone layed off - be it administrative staff or classroom teachers. So, I am not suggesting the layoffs be shifted to administrative staff. And there is a need for administrative staff too. But with several very highly paid administrative executives here in Charlotte, and I suspect in many school districts, are there other cuts that can be made? Salary cuts, like many businesses that wish to save more jobs are doing? That talk hasn't come to Charlotte. Peter Gorman, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Superintendent, hasn't mentioned pay cuts for himself and his administration staff - or across the board even.

There are also programs and technologies which can be cut at this time. I guess it might be good to examine which would have the greater effect on students 1) overcrowded classrooms or 2)loss of some technological tools which some of our better schools have become accustomed to. It seems like a good teacher could get creative and still teach a reasonable number of students with less technology than the same teacher teaching an overcrowded class. But, that's just my opinion - I may not know best.

What are your thoughts?

LET'S TALK TAXES

The Republicans ought to be ashamed of themselves and they know better. How can they argue, with a straight face, against the plan to end the tax cut on individuals making more than $250,000.00 per year?

They claim that it hurts Small Businesses - the ones that create jobs and keep America running.. THEY KNOW THAT THE TAX CUTS ONLY HELP THE BIGGEST CORPORATIONS AND VERY WEALTHY INDIVIDUALS. Yes, they know better.

It's interesting who they have making those arguments: multi-millionaire Congressmen and people like Joe The Plumber - who we all know doesn't have a business. I have not seen any small business people making the argument because they know what the Congressmen know. SMALL BUSINESSES DON'T MAKE $250,000.00 per year. If they do, then they need another accountant and attorney. I will explain.

Businesses are taxed on their income left over after their business expenses.. So the magic $250,000.00 taxable income is what is left over. Here is why small businesses don't make $250,000.00 taxable income. Even if they Gross a lot of money, the trick is to spend it in such a way that its a tax deductible event to the business (reducing taxable income), and such that the business owner gets the benefit of it without being taxable income to him/her. It's all legal as long as you don't go crazy and do something like pay the light/phone bill at your house from business income and try to deduct it without claiming it as personal income.

Some good legal examples include: health/life insurance; the company car and all of its insurance, maintenance and repairs; business trips where you actually conduct business (but also sort of a mini family vacation). Sometimes they just happen to be at a nice resort. Another good example is college tuition for company officers and key employees or directors. OK- hire your kids in key positions or add them to the board of directors or make them Vice president of Whatever. They can consult on the telephone and work when they're home on break. Oh, you can put them on the payroll too - the same money you would have given them anyway. Finally, you can hire your spouse and add him/her to the payroll and file separate tax returns.

The spouse is a good one. Let me explain. Let's say that after all the deductions you can get, you still have $250,000.00 left over as taxable income and you file jointly as husband and wife. At 36% you would pay $90,000.00 in taxes. Now, lets split that and file separately with each spouse making $125,000.00 and dropping down to the 28% tax bracket. So now each spouse pays $35,000.00 in taxes for a total of $70,000.00 or a $20,000.00 savings. Out of the same $250,000.00, you can reduce the incomes even lower and therefore lower the tax bracket by adding the kids to the payroll.

Ideally you want spread out that $250K so that eventually its taxed at 15% for each person getting money. All the money comes in the same household, but at 15% instead of 36%. Ha! a savings of $52,500.00. That is a total of $250K broken down into small pieces. 250K x 15% = $37,500.00. Instead of $250,000.00 x 36% = $90,000.00. The savings is $52,500.00 . NOT BAD.

The only people who can't "fix" their income in this legal way are the very wealthy and the largest corporations. They just make too much money. And that's good; they just ought pay the taxes on that "over the top income".

Small businesses are not complaining because they know better; the Republicans know better, but they are trying to protect their wealthy contributors. So they recruit Joe who really doesn't know any better. The problem they all talk loud and a lot of other people just like Joe jump on the band wagon.

President Regan used to call them the "silent majority". I always called them the "ignorant majority". Not ignorant in a negative way; put simply, they just suffered from a lack of knowledge of what's really going on. They were and still are being used and don't even know it.

THANK GOD, FINALLY THEY ARE THE IGNORANT "MINORITY". Let's keep them in the minority.

BB

ECONOMICS / POLITICS 101

Obama has been President for less than 3 weeks and the economy is in a real mess. But make no mistake about it, this is George Bush's mess. It didn't just happen over night; it's been in the making for a long time.

NOW, I don't know or care if you're a Dem or a Repub, but consider this. For 6 out of the last 8 years, we had a Repub President and a majority of Repubs in both the House and Senate and they are the ones who "drove the bus in the ditch" when they were in control.

NOW that the Dems have inherited this mess and are in control (President, House and Senate), the Repubs think they know everything and disagree with everything that is proposed. GO FIGURE! It's a good thing they are finally in the minority. If they knew everything or anything, we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

They, Repubs, are pushing the same old tired, worn out message. GO FIGURE! Supply side economics with tax breaks to the wealthy has never worked and will never work. Why can't they figure that out? If you give tax cuts and other money incentives to the wealthy with the hope that they will start businesses, why would they when there is no demand for the goods and services that they would offer because people are not working? THEY WILL PUT THE MONEY IN THEIR POCKET OR IN OFFSHORE BANKS. That's why the bus is in the ditch in the first place. They've done that for 6 of the last 8 years, plus other Repub administrations before Bush. And when the final curtain was coming down, they kept taking money of the top, even as the ship was sinking. Paying bonuses with bailout (tax payer) money---HOW ARROGANT AND SELFISH CAN YOU GET? Well, then the sheriff made it possible in the first place and is clearly looking the other way, why not?

HELLO! A strong stimulus package is in order. Give the money to the people; they will spend it and create the demand for products and services. Now that is an incentive for the wealthy to take their own money or get bank loans to start businesses to supply the goods and services to meet the demand. DEMAND SIDE ECONOMICS WORKS--ALWAYS HAS AND ALWAYS WILL.

If you are old enough then you will remember, or if you are not old enough to remember then study history, and look at how things were under the following administrations: Roosevelt, Johnson (Lyndon), Clinton, just to name a few. ALL DEMS. Well the economy was booming. Let's go there again.

Now some claim that a massive "give away" would be irresponsible. Maybe so, but a responsible thing to do is put people back to work. Make them earn it. Government spending is absolutely appropriate to create jobs.

Some immediate hand outs are OK, but put people to work and let them shop and pay taxes and the and the money will turn over again and again and the economy will grow. The Repubs are just talking loud and saying nothing.

DON'T BE MISLEAD!

BB

These banks are something else

Wells Fargo issued a press release yesterday in response to an Associated Press report about a company trip to Las Vegas. You can find the press release here. Paragraph 3 states:

The Associated Press story also misleads readers by implying Wells Fargo used the government’s investment to pay for these events. As we’ve said before, we’ve used the government’s investment to lend to creditworthy customers and to help homeowners avoid foreclosure.

All I'm going to say is, this reminds me of when my co-worker told me that her cousin needed to borrow some money. While he had the $150 or so to buy the X-box or Game Cube or whatever from his friend, he didn't have money to put gas in his car, or buy his mother's birthday present. And her birthday was that very day, and he was supposed to be taking her out to dinner. I said WTF!?!?!? In these times, and any other when the money is tight, it's about making tough decisions. You can't have it all. So, maybe he doesn't get the game system. But don't act like you are truly broke.

I say the same thing to Wells Fargo - what do you mean you didn't use the taxpayer money. You have to make the tough decisions. Either you needed our money, or you were okay and can take the trip. But you can't have the trip and say you need our money too. Maybe literally, you didn't use the money from the government, but if you wouldn't have booked the trip (and paid several other things like bonuses) would you have needed the government money - or at least as much?

It's my understanding that Wells is actually going to lose money from cancelling the trip at this late date, and that's a shame. And Las Vegas is going to lose money too, which isn't good b/c I am trying to go later in the year and I want the casinos to have some money to give me. But back to the topic at hand - the trip shouldn't have been booked, and the fact that they try to differentiate the money pots is insulting.

Besides the PR issue, I would think someone would see some legal or ethical issues with this. I hope President O and the team can get some arms around this.